The Supreme Court of India in a landmark judgment as to interpretation of Indian Patents Act and to the maintainability of challenge to a provision after it is repealed, held that challenge to Controller's refusal to application for Exclusive Marketing Rights of GSK is maintainable even though the Act under which EMR application could be granted was repealed on January 1, 2005.
GSK has filed a black box application in respect of product patents in 1998, as before 2005 product patent application were neither examined not Granted, GSK in the year 2000 filed an EMR application for grant of exclusive license to market the product in India for 5 year. The application was rejected in 2002 against which GSK preferred a writ petition before High Court. In 2004 the matter was decided in favour of GSK by the High Court and Ld. Single Judge was pleased to allow re-examination of the EMR application of GSK. However, pursuant to order of the High Court, the application for EMR was re-examined and was again rejected on 28-12-2004 just 3 days before the provision relating to EMR was repealed by the Indian Patents Act, 2005.
GSK again preferred a writ petition against the order of the Controller rejecting the EMR application, the said writ was objected in view of repealing of provision relating to EMR as India started examining as well as Granting product patent applications in the Patents (Amendment) 2005 Act. It was contended by the Patent office that 2005 Amendment has repealed the provision for granting EMR, therefore leaving no scope for further consideration of the EMR application and in view of Section 78 of the Patent (Amendment) Act 2005, the pending applications for grant of EMR filed before January 01, 2005 i.e. GSK's application for EMR shall be deemed to be as a request for Examination for grant of patent.
Section 78 of the Amending Act reads as follow:
78. Transitional Provision- (1) Notwithstanding the omission of Chapter IVA of the principal Act by section 21 of this Act, every application for the grant of exclusive marketing rights filed under that Chapter before the 1st day of January, 2005, in respect of a claim for a patent covered under sub-section (2) of section 5 of the principal Act, such application shall be deemed to be treated as a request for examination for grant of patent under sub-section (3) of section 11B of the principal Act, as amended by this Act.
This was contested by GSK, saying that on January 01, 2005 no such application for Grant of EMR was pending, in fact the application was disposed off even before the amending provision came into effect. Therefore right to challenge the impugned order rejecting the EMR application before any appropriate forum vested in Petitioner before the amending provision of Act came into effect, hence said Section 78 of the Amending Act has no application to the facts of the case. But the High court differed and decided the matter in favour of the Controller of Patents.
GSK filed a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India before the Supreme Court of India against the said order of the High Court. The Supreme Court observed that the Amending Act is silent on the issue of maintainability of pending proceedings initiated under the repealed Act, therefore provision of the General Clauses Act of 1897 shall apply.
Section 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897 reads as follows:
6. Effect of repeal.- Where this Act , or any Act made after the commencement of this Act, repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not-
c). affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or
The above provision makes it amply clear that where any enactment is repealed, it shall not affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed, unless, a different intention appears. Accordingly the Supreme Court held the GSK's petition was maintainable.
On February 24, 2021, the Government of Pakistan deposited its instrument of accession to the Madrid Protocol with WIPO’s Director General.
IPAB Dissolved with effect from April 4, 2021
Office of CGPDTM extends deadline for all IP matters relying on Supreme Court order dated January 10, 2022. The period between March 15, 2020 till February 28, 2022 shall not be counted for the purpose of limitation and a minimum 90 days limitation period shall be allowed from March 1, 2022.
salient features of the Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2016 as applicable for foreign Applicant in India
Supreme Court held that the provisions of section 62 of the Copyright Act and section 134 of the Trade Marks Act have to be interpreted in the purposive manner and clarified that if the plaintiff is residing or carrying on business etc. at a place where cause of action, wholly or in part, has also arisen, he has to file a suit at that place.
Mere posting of the letter on the website does not constitute communication of the objection or proposal in writing as required by Rule 38(4) of Trade Marks Rules, 2002. The Mumbai HC held that placing the notice of the website does not constitute compliance with that Rule 38(4) of the said Rules.
Object of grant of patent is to encourage scientific research, new technology and industrial progress and for that object exclusive privilege is granted. At the same time before awarding patent for any invention it has to be considered that the invention must be novel, must involve an inventive step and must have industrial application.
The expression “inventive step” is predominantly used for instance in European Union while the expression “non- obviousness” is predominantly used in United States of America. The assessment of the inventive step and non-obviousness varies from one country to another while the underlying basic principal remains the same.
Delhi high court upheld Judgement directing restoration and renewal of trademark MBD, 29 years after due date of renewal. Notice on form O3 is must intimating the registered proprietor about the deadline of renewal and consequence thereof.
Section 33 (1) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 provides that if the earlier Registered Proprietor has acquiesced for a continuous period of 5 years in the use of a registered trademark, being aware of that use, he is not entitled to either seek invalidation of such later mark or oppose its use in relation to goods or services in relation to which it has been so used, unless registration of such mark was applied in bad faith.
Definition: Obviousness is a noun, derived from word obvious meaning easily seen, recognised or understood. The word obvious has originated from the Latin word “obvius” meaning “in the way”.
Trade dress refers to characteristics of the visual or sensual appearance of a product that may also include its packaging which may be registered and protected from being used by competitors in relation to their business and services.
The Supreme Court of India in a landmark judgment as to interpretation of Indian Patents Act and to the maintainability of challenge to a provision after it is repealed...
Delhi High Court in Double Coin Holdings Ltd. Vs. Trans Tyres (India) Pvt. Ltd. elaborately dealt with the issue as to who has right over a trademark, manufacturer or distributor/ importer
Delhi High Court held amendment in claims as allowed in another suit can not be allowed in a pending suit without amending plaint.
Computer Software & Business Method Patents In India: India does not allow patents for inventions related to mathematical or business method or computer programme “per se” or algorithms.
Obviousness is a noun, derived from word obvious meaning easily seen, recognised or understood. The word obvious has originated from the Latin word “obvius” meaning “in the way”.To interpret the doctrine of obviousness it is necessary to first understand the objective of grant of Patent.
"Non-obviousness" is the term for “inventive step” used in US patent law and codified under 35 U.S.C. §103. Thereby implying that a "person having ordinary skill in the art" would not know how to solve the problem at which the invention is directed by using exactly the same mechanism.
Inventions pertaining to microorganisms and other Biological material were subjected to product patent in India unlike many developed countries. But with effect from 20.05.2003 India has started granted patents to invention related to microorganisms.
Compulsory Licence For Patents In India: Any interested person after expiry of 3 years from grant of patent even though if he is a license under the patent, may make an application to the Controller for grant of compulsory license
The Government of India is finalising a system that will prevent generic manufactures from getting marketing approval to sell patented drugs in India.
India like European Union does not allow patents for inventions related to mathematical or business method or computer programme "per se" or algorithms. The relevant provision under the Indian Patents Act reads as under...
Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd, Indian arm of Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd had challenged the constitutionality of India's customs regulations governing the import of IP goods in Delhi High Court by filing a writ petition. More precisely it has challenged the custom notification no. 47/2007 Customs (N.T.) dated 08.05.2007 called Intellectual Property Right (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007
Chennai High Court in Writ Jurisdiction set aside order dismissing the patent applications on basis that the request for examination was filed beyond the prescribed period of 48 months. no delay or fault can be attributed to the petitioner. For negligence/ docketing error by agent, the valuable statutory rights of the petitioner cannot be completely deprived of.
Kolkata High Court held that novelty resides in 2D design too. GUI on the finished article is a mechanical and manual process under section 2(d). A software developer develops a source code which creates the GUI. This source code is then embedded in the micro-controllers and micro-processors and is displayed in screen by illuminating pixels by electronic means. Therefore, the design is applied to the article by industrial process and means.
Delhi High Court clarifies Section 64 of the Patents Act, and observed that there is no limitation prescribed either in the Patents Act or under the Patents Rules, and held that a limitation period cannot be read it into the provision. Court held that filing of a revocation petition could be done at any point in time when such a person’s interest either arises or continues during the life/term of the Patent.
Controller allowed amendment in claims and granted the Patent (as well as dismissed the Pre Grant Opposition) after completion of pleadings, hearing and submissions of post-hearing written submissions and without any notice to Opponent to respond to the proposed amendments, the Patent was granted. Delhi High Court set aside the order and remanded the matter Back for reconsideration of pre-grant opposition.
Delhi High Court clarifies legal position as to maintainability of divisional application and held that a divisional application cannot be filed if there is no “plurality of inventions”. The Appeal was dismissed with cost.
Delhi High Court interprets Section 59 and allows amendment in claims and narrowing down of scope of claims (from product to process) in view of disclosure of process in the description.
Delhi High Court clarifies that when the subject matter of the patent application is showing technical advancement over the cited prior arts, and when the cited prior arts are considerably old, it is a clear indicator of non-obviousness.
Delhi High Court Interprets Section 3 (k) of Patents Act and "Technical effect" and "Technical contribution" for computer programs.
Delhi High Court in re: Diamond Star Global Sdn. Bhd. Vs Joint Controller of Patents, vide its judgment dated March 29, 2023 set aside the impugned order rejecting grant of Patent and directed the Patent to be granted.
Supreme Court held that the provisions of section 62 of the Copyright Act and section 134 of the Trade Marks Act have to be interpreted in the purposive manner and clarified that if the plaintiff is residing or carrying on business etc. at a place where cause of action, wholly or in part, has also arisen, he has to file a suit at that place.
Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction cannot be conferred by joining two causes of action in the same suit when the court has jurisdiction to try the suit only in respect of one cause of action and not the other.
Supreme Court held that a composite suit would not entitle a court to entertain a suit in respect whereof it has no jurisdiction, territorial or otherwise. Order 2 Rule 3 of the Code specifically states so and, thus, there is no reason as to why the same should be ignored.
Supreme Court held that for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of a court only because two causes of action joined in terms of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, the same would not mean that thereby the jurisdiction can be conferred upon a court which had jurisdiction to try only the suit in respect of one cause of action and not the other. Recourse to the additional forum, however, in a given case, may be taken if both the causes of action arise within the jurisdiction of the
5 Bench of Supreme Court held that Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
The Chennai High Court held that the time prescribed under Rule 20 for filing national phase PCT Application in India is 31 months from priority date, and the period, which could be extended by taking into consideration of facts and circumstances, is one month under Rule 138. The application for extension is required to be made within the period prescribed. Therefore, proviso would come into operation for the purpose of calculating period of one month. On true interpretation of rule 138, it is h
The Controller of Patents Granted India’s first Compulsory License to Natco Pharma Limited in respect of Patent no. 215758 of Bayer Corporation.
Delhi High Court set Guidelines to determine jurisdiction in Internet related cases
Agreeing with Single Judge's Consideration to adverse impact of grant of injunction on life saving drugs Delhi High Court imposed Cost of Rs. 5 Lakhs on Appellant
Supreme Court of India, Appeal against Pre Grant opposition order to be heard by High Court though Patent Act amended and IPAB came into existence
Delhi High Court declines Cadila Healthcare's plea to restrain use of 'Sugar Free'
Supreme Courts Bars Challenge To “Peter Scot” On Principles Of Acquiescence And/ Or Waiver
Delhi High Court vacated interim injunction and directs defendants to maintain accounts of manufacture, sale and supply
No balance of convenience or irreparable loss Chennai High Court set aside Injunction granted by Single Judge of High Court
Supreme Court of India in a landmark judgement as to interpretation of Indian Patents Act and to the maintainability of challenge to a provision after it is repealed, held that Challenge to a provision accrued before it is repealed is maintainable if the repealing act is silent
Mumbai High Court (DB) held that mere posting of the letter on website does not constitute communication of objection as required by rule 38(4) under the Trademark Rules.
Delhi High Court in a Letter Patent Appeal upheld the single Judge Order that issuance of notice on Form O3 mandatory before removing the mark. Restoration period to be counted from date of removal from Register not from due date of renewal
Supreme Court of India rejects Novartis Patent for Beta Crystalline form of Imatinib Mesylate being violative of Section 2(1) (j), (ja) as well as 3(d) of Indian Patent Act in view of the earlier Patent for Imatinib free salt
70th Council Meeting of Asian Patent Attorneys Association was held in Taipei, Taiwan from November 9 to November 12, 2020
India
Bhutan
Sri Lanka
Bangladesh
Nepal
Maldives
Pakistan
Worldwide
